I've posted a comment over at David Pollard's How to Save the World where he lands in the middle of the target of one of the most promising, and perplexing, questions for the Information & Attention Age:

How do we contact and filter the network that is Out There?

What do you think is possible? And valuable? Who could you find, and who could find you, in a globally wired population? As an extravert, and a personal coach, and an optimiser wired to seek novelty, I often tell myself I can never be bored or lonely on a planet carrying so many different humans, each embedded in his/her own comprehensive and interlocking world. 6,397,446,145 people. And counting. Click for the number Right Now. Don't be satisfied with old news.

This conversation will continue. Good&Happy is stoked on the subject.

In lieu of comments here you can e-mail good_and_happy [with the icon for "at"] yahoo.com.

UPDATE -- Just one of our 6,397,536,919 neighbors, willing to demonstrate counting for anthropologists studying the Mundurukú. Are we not all rich in each other? from languagelog "Language, thought and counting in Amazonia" (October 30, 2004).

In languagelog (October 30, 2004) a Spanish study of corporate annual reports, and US presidential candidates. Institutions' and individuals' good performance is negatively correlated with use of the future tense. For corporations, financial performance. For candidates, election.

Let's see, how do I want to say this: Not, "I will use the present tense, to maximize my success." Rather, "I listen to myself and notice, sometimes, that I am predicting a future..." And cease doing so. And find something to observe in the present. And do so now.

Maybe there's more to it, but this is a start. And has the "feel" of increased focus and dominion.

Perfect exchanges like this delight me. You will have to decide whether you share my taste in communications humor, this from the Toronto Globe and Mail. The original transaction was no doubt meant, if slyly, quite seriously.

What he said. [Insert your own bete noire here] sisixhobo ngoko. And what follows. And a plug for including ieveryone [sic] in the circle of human exchange, IMO the truest justification for global commerce.

"Computing in Zulu," October 25, 2004, 4:50 pm. When languagelog is on...

As I said we would be, here are all 19 of us, in Anita Brewer Howard's Introduction to Mass Media class at Austin Community College in the late morning of October 26th, live-blogging.

Student and teacher responses to this morning’s discussion of weblogs’ impact on journalism:

Works for the spread of uncensored public opinion.

Is it like the journalists' Man on the Street?

According to census figures, only 50-60% US households own a computer. Is blogging just an upper-middle-class phenomenon?

Can be flammable and volatile in issues like the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

Problem with spread of false or incomplete stories.

The Austin newspaper did the right thing in not reporting racial incidents during integration.

75% of the news [in the MSM] has validation, but anything can be put on a blog.

HB's [Head Blogger] afterthoughts here:

When the subject of "how can we get some gatekeepers on the Internet?" arose, my own sense was that there was not much acknowledgement of First Amendment protection for a chaotic melange of all kinds of information freely available in the public arena, battling for attention and presenting competing best cases. The nation's Founders came out of tightly British-Crown-controlled rules for public expression, and knew its tyranny. This generation comes out of information-overload. Problems of Ideology censoring opinion, or Power censoring information, is often alleged but seldom experienced. They perceive other problems.

What I did not convey very well in response is that if gatekeepers are missing, editors do exist. For instance, if an unknown blogger reports some egregious omission in a news story, I check blogs that have a track record of being sane and accurate, and wait to give the story much weight until they comment on it. And then I will look at another that has proved reliable, to double-check. The discussion suggested that bloggers are free to create inflammatory lies, and that their readers will believe them. Well, no... Comments or e-mails will attach in droves, demanding the data and other, often MSM, authentication. Lots of room for challenges until consensus of some kind arises.

What I did not say well, is that, where MSM used to be the only game in town, even if a story didn't "smell" right, there is in the last couple of years a competing forum, a blogosphere, saying, "wait a minute, these are the reasons we think this is not the complete and relevant truth." It's almost impossible under these circumstances to bury inconvenient facts, though it raises lots of dust in the process.

The class' questions and comments were stimulating. They showed engagement with the deep issues of public information, the interface between information and power, and demands for public safety, order, and the comfort of reliable and inoffensive information. My satisfaction from participating in the class comes from signalling to new journalists that their field no longer affords sinecures in which they are insulated from The Whole World Fact-Checking Them from every angle .

Note to students in the class: By the nature of the medium, I have had the last word here. If you want to say anthing more, e-mail me and I'll post it. Good_and_happy "at" yahoo.com.

Austin Community College, where I taught Philosophical Ethics and was an Advisor to Students in the 90’s, is one of the noble (in its own demotic way) institutions of Central Texas, a place to study almost anything without having to drive on Guadeloupe Street (the local University “drag”). I’ve learned computer graphics, statistics, and many subtler but even more useful things in my association with it. Long may the Community College system prosper.

Goodies include the advantages of an optimistic image of the future (Bruce Mau); the usefulness of aggression for alliance-building (Frans de Waal); the hard demographic reality for countries whose cradles are almost empty (Philip Longman); and the elusiveness of the truth when we ask people what they want and expect them to tell us in words (Malcolm Gladwell).

Full of implications for happiness. In rather simple-minded applications,
-- What positive image of the future is plausible and inviting? Engage it.
-- Under pressure? Start looking for alliances. Aren't foxhole friendships said to be among the most robust?
-- Cherish a child. Encourage a parent.
-- Pay attention to people on all levels, not just verbally. I think it was Shunryu Suzuki-roshi who said, "Don't try to change people. Just let them do as they wish, and watch them." At its best, this yields compassionate, creative communication -- an educated relationship.

When did you really get online? I don't remember, but I know that on 9.11.01 I raced to the computer, not the television or radio.

I've offered to chat with a community college journalism class about my obsession with immediacy and transparency on the Internet. We will discuss the impact of The Drudge Report, blogs about the the Anglican controversy over scripture and sexuality, Rathergate, and for a little fun, the Guardian's Ohio letter-writing campaign and Tim Blair's coverage based on his claim he invented the idea. We'll segue into the lineaments of Good&Happy, and I hope to do some live-blogging from the class on September 26.

Discussing the "Windsor Report," a last-ditch effort to paper over the international Anglican crisis, a comment posted to the weblog of S.C canon lawyer and Uber-Anglican Kendall Harmon says it for me:

[From response of Primate Bishops to the Report]: we are very encouraged by the broad welcome and support that the report has received from many throughout the Communion.

[Weblog reader comments]: I was just thinking this morning about how the internet has changed the world. Before the world wide web, it was just possible that a statement like this could come out and people would have believed it. But it looks like most church PR flacks still don’t get it - we unwashed masses have access to the raw facts now. We’ve actually read the responses from around the communion, and we know there is no “broad support and welcome.” Comment by Nicholas — 10/20/2004 @ 10:40 am

It began with C-Span. If we wanted, we could watch press conferences, then gape in astonishment at the tone and content of print and broadcast reports on what we ourselves had seen.

But not many people watched press conferences on C-Span. Many, many of us now are wired, and more plug in every day. As I said before, we unwashed masses have access to the raw facts now.

The eyes of the vox populi are opening. Now, we will see just what we will do with what we see.

I hear your groans, I too groan when I hear it. But sales is almost all we do. We offer ourselves in relationships, we negotiate our desired outcomes when we ask for help or information, and of course most of us need to sell something -- whether in-house or to an outside constituency -- to make a living. Persuasion is not arguing, begging, whining, hoping, insisting. Persuasion is how we furnish our lives in a world of other people. And if we do it well, we add to everyone's network of wealth and relationship.

A recent Texas study reported by the Harvard Business School illuminates a simple and civilized truth to improve results when we negotiate, ask, sell, recommend. It is so simple I hesitate to describe it. It is,

Explicitly acknowledge the relationship.

What follows is the algorithm I now plan to use deliberately.

1. Be aware of the relationship. That is, I don't want to trigger a formula just to jerk people around. So I will touch in to that part of myself that is honestly touched by and in touch with the other person on some basis, even if it's just standing in the same line at Wal-Mart. (Or Williams-Sonoma, lest I skew the demography here.) It may be how long we've known each other; how certain things are important to both of us; even something that just happened that we both noticed. Ask myself, "What is my honest relationship to this person? Of what does it consist?" Our minds seem ever ready to seize on difference. For amusement and effectiveness, I will be curious about what we have in common.

2. Claim the relationship, verbally, and to the extent appropriate, with body language. In the reported experiment, with dating couples, it was something like, You know, we've been together for a while now. or, We both want to.... Or, simply, the use of we and our. In the business context, merging hospitals stopped squabbling when a director said, in effect, We can keep hurting ourselves, or we can cooperate for profit. Even a solicitor for charity -- asking strangers for money -- increased his take five-fold by saying, I'm a student here, too.

Other approaches, for comparison, were aggressive and threatening demands, or a logical presentation attempting to demonstrate the reasonableness of the request. Neither was as successful in its results, though reasonable arguments, unsurprisingly, worked better than aggressive demands.

3. Ask. In most situations, I've learned it is a good idea to figure out what you want, then to ask directly and unapologetically for it. Master Coach Molly Gordon of Seattle says, "Tell the truth as though it's not a problem." Politicians -- ask for the vote. Vendors -- ask for business from the best clients you can find. Everybody -- ask yourself first, and answer clearly, then ask, out loud, in words, at a well-chosen time, for what you want. Be willing to hear "no." But don't expect it. Make it easy to say "yes."

I tire easily of Getting to 'Yes' while Being Fair to Everybody for Five Generations or an Eleven Easy Steps to the Sale approach. But this is just simple, and honest, enough to practice. Read it. Try it. I will too. Let me know. good_and_happy"at"yahoo.com

Peter gave himself up for lost, and shed big tears; but his sobs were overheard by some friendly sparrows, who flew to him in great excitement, and implored him to exert himself.

Back before Irony invaded almost all our synapses, simple thoughts like this saw big people through big troubles. And Beatrix Potter's watercolors are a comfort and joy, when we're in the mood for something of the kind.

Maybe do our own series.... It doesn't have to be a very tiny tale. My favorite for years was, "Off went Frodo, a small but upright figure." Now, can't we all do that? Don't be bashful, send your favorite quotes from the classics. A link to an illustration doesn't hurt, but isn't required. We're all agog here at 'good_and_happy "at" yahoo.com,' eager for shared inspiration.

This entry began as a special hello for Good&[almost always]Happy Michelle, who knows how to Get a Grip.

The next head-nurse post is also instructive, relating as it does a trip to the store after a frustrating day ("Big Fun on a Saturday Night"). Magazine purchases: Scientific American and Allure: The Best Beauty Issue.

Rule for women of all ages: The best Boot Camp for a Happy Life consists of a Saturday night alone, enjoying the heck out of it.

[The Coach is In. A no-fee special.]

UPDATE -- Gonzo programmer and all-round Good&Happy friend Bob in Montreal kicks in here: "I think the same goes for the guys."

Under the happy delusion that anyone might have noticed my absence, I will explain that several days quaking in indecision were required before taking the credit card hostage for an indefinite period in support of this little web space. Eventually, I decided I like it here, and that credit cards are manufactured for commercial use, not merely for breaking into flimsy locks. So. Here I am for the indefinite future.

Taking another risk, even though it's from a politically-weighted source in this grim election season, as well as rather sniffy about the sniffier sort of British, I find this Australian post with its comments extremely funny, full of leaps to uncharitable conclusions about our human fellows, which, sadly I suppose, is the characteristic of some of the finest humor the human race has known.

Anyone who can explain to my satisfaction that this is not at least intermittently, and in concept, funny qualifies for the Good&Happy Grand Guardian Prize, a night in the Motel 6 nearest Clark Co., OH.